The bench, comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, made these remarks in its October 28 judgment, upholding the husband’s conviction for murdering his wife.
Cuttack, Orissa: A wife requesting her hungry husband to wait briefly for food does not constitute grave and sudden provocation that could lead him to commit murder, the Orissa High Court observed while adjudicating a murder case.
The bench, comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, made these remarks in its October 28 judgment, upholding the husband’s conviction for murdering his wife.
The court rejected the defense’s argument that the case fell under culpable homicide not amounting to murder, contending that the husband acted under grave and sudden provocation.
READ ALSO: Surrogate Mothers Also have “Right to Maternity Leave” : Orissa HC
Clarifying the legal principle, the court noted that grave and sudden provocation is a mixed question of law and facts.
Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) exempts culpable homicide from being classified as murder if it occurs without premeditation, during a sudden fight or quarrel, in the heat of passion, and without undue advantage or cruelty.
“In this case, there was neither a quarrel nor a fight. A housewife asking her husband to wait for food preparation cannot be considered grave and sudden provocation. It is evident that on the day of the incident, there was no provocation grave enough to justify the appellant’s loss of self-control and his merciless assault on his defenseless wife in the presence of their minor daughter,” the judgment stated.
The appellant, Raikishore Jena, had appealed the trial court’s conviction for murdering his wife. According to the case details, Jena had returned home and demanded food. When his wife requested a brief wait as the food was being prepared, Jena became enraged, fetched a katuri (sharp weapon), and inflicted multiple injuries on her head, face, neck, and ears, leading to her death on the spot.
The trial court relied on the testimony of the couple’s minor daughter, the post-mortem report, and medical evidence to convict him.
The High Court observed,
“While the appellant may have been hungry, as the Panchatantra states, Bubhuksitah Kim Na Karoti Papam (‘a hungry person can commit any sin’), and Jean de La Fontaine wrote, ‘a hungry stomach has no ears,’ the appellant’s reaction of retrieving a katuri and inflicting nine grievous injuries on vital parts of the deceased’s body clearly demonstrated his intention to commit murder.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
